President Barack Obama on Tuesday charted a plan for investing billions more dollars in “clean energy” programs, even as he proposed a five-year freeze in overall federal spending and renewed his call for an end to tax breaks for oil companies.

In a roughly hour-long State of the Union address, Obama prodded lawmakers to subsidize research on cleaner-burning alternative energy sources at the expense of traditional fossil fuels as a way to boost U.S. competitiveness, wean the U.S. off foreign oil imports and aid the nation’s economic recovery.

AP photo

President Obama: “We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.”

“With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” Obama said. “We need to get behind this innovation — and to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.”

Obama’s decision to target $4 billion in tax incentives used annually by oil, gas and coal producers has already been rejected twice by Congress. The plan is also bitterly opposed by oil and gas industry leaders, who say that any short-term gains in tax revenue would be offset by suppressed domestic energy production years in the future.

But Obama mocked oil companies by suggesting that the tax incentives he wants to eliminate are not essential to their bottom lines.

“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own,” he said. “So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.”

And Obama said the U.S. can’t afford to lose the global fight over who will be the world leader in producing the solar panels, batteries and energy technology of the future. He likened the global battle over alternative energy technology to the 1961 space race inspired by the Soviet Union’s successful launch of the Sputnik satellite four years earlier.

“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” Obama said. “We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.”

Obama’s clean energy spending plan puts him on a collision course with congressional Republicans, who have proposed eliminating the Applied Energy Research program at the Energy Department.

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, underscored the political challenge facing the president:

“Innovation is not measured in federal dollars spent or government mandates imposed. Energy independence is not achieved through government dependence. Congress spent tens of billions of dollars on the federal government’s favored energy sources in the stimulus, yet America remains dependent on hostile foreign nations to power our lives. We know the answer is not to hyper-subsidize preferred industries or force consumers and job creators to purchase energy they cannot afford. That is not how the free market works.”

Obama also called on Congress to back a goal that by 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will be generated by clean energy sources.

But Obama dodged the politically charged fight over what types of power might qualify, by urging an expansive definition that embraces nuclear power, natural gas and so-called “clean coal” technology as well as electricity generated by the wind and sun.

>>> On the jump page: The rest of the story, plus comprehensive reaction to President Obama’s energy remarks during his State of the Union address

On Capitol Hill, a narrower proposal to force utilities to generate more of their power from renewable sources has faltered amid resistance from nuclear backers and lawmakers representing coal-producing states.

Scott Segal, a lobbyist with Bracewell and Giuliani who represents oil refiners and energy companies, said Obama’s decision to embrace “a wide range of clean technologies . . . is a positive development that underscores the notion that traditional fuels — including coal — can be utilized in an environmentally friendly way.” But, he added:

“The devil is in the details — what will qualify and in what proportions. A poorly calibrated clean energy standard can be as harmful to the economy as a restrictive renewable portfolio standard. As a general proposition, governmental mandates can have unintended consequences.”

Oil and gas industry leaders said Obama squandered an opportunity to emphasize the importance of traditional energy production, even as part of a transition to alternative power.

“The president focused on job growth through federal spending, but was silent on one of the best ways to create jobs: allow more energy development,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute. “Natural gas and renewables are important components of our energy mix, but we will need our nation’s vast oil resources for decades to come.”

Obama’s focus on energy included two noticeable absences. He made no mention of last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill and avoided any reference to limiting the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming, following Congress’ failure last year to pass broad climate change legislation that would cap carbon dioxide.

Environmentalists had hoped Obama would use his State of the Union platform Tuesday night to reaffirm support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulation of emissions from power plants and refineries.

Daniel Weiss, a climate strategy director for the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, noted that Obama “reiterated that he will ‘create or enforce commonsense safeguards’ to protect Americans from harm.” Weiss said that “should include requiring coal-fired power plants and oil refineries to cut mercury, carbon, smog and other dangerous pollutants.”

Some congressional Republicans were disappointed Obama didn’t talk more about how cutting red tape could promote jobs in the energy industry and other sectors.

Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, noted that even though the Obama administration lifted its ban on deep-water drilling last October, that kind of exploration hasn’t resumed in the Gulf of Mexico. And, he said, “we still have an EPA actively working to impose radical and unworkable air regulations on the state of Texas.”

Here is a sampling of reaction to the energy portion of President Obama’s State of the Union address:

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass:

“If we are going to win the future, we must win the clean energy race. Tonight, President Obama challenged Republicans to back jobs created from renewable energy, not just coal and oil. I still doubt that the ‘drill, baby, drill’ crowd will head the call to ‘innovate, baby, innovate,’ especially when investments would be paid for by cutting the wasteful and unnecessary billions in tax breaks that the oil companies currently receive. When your eyes are always trained to the ground, looking for the next place to drill, it’s easy for a Sputnik moment to fly right over your head.”

Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas:

“The president … referenced increased research and investments in clean energy to reduce our dependence on oil. While a commitment to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is essential to our nation’s security, we must safely return oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico to pre-oil spill levels. This production is essential to local jobs, the local economy, and the nation.”

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah:

“While I commend the President for his desire to implement a diverse energy portfolio by 2035, I hope that he will not discriminate certain industries over others. It is essential that as a nation we utilize all diverse and abundant natural energy resources. Failure to do so will result in further reliance on foreign and unstable sources.”

Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La.:

“Tonight, the President missed a tremendous opportunity to address the on-going situation in the Gulf of Mexico. I would have preferred empty words to absolute neglect. Of 6,802 words in the President’s speech, not one addressed the Administration’s de facto moratorium, the resulting job losses, or the degradation of Coastal Louisiana’s economy. Mr. President, ducking the issue will not lessen our dependence upon foreign oil, wishing will not lower the price at the pump, and no amount of space race metaphors can put Louisianans back to work. It’s one thing to dream; it’s another to fantasize. We need leadership; we need action.”

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club:

“We agree with the President that with soaring oil prices, national security concerns, and disasters like the BP Gulf disaster, now is the time to move beyond dirty energy. And as the President stated, one important way to start is by eliminating subsidies for Big Oil. Whether it is investment in wind and solar power or improved transportation choices and infrastructure, there is strong support among the American people for a clean energy economy that works for America. While the Sierra Club is firmly opposed to the misconception that coal or nuclear power can ever be clean, we want to use this moment to focus on the strong message the President sent about true clean energy sources and how these innovations will lead to new prosperity and good jobs.”

“The president got it right. Nothing’s more urgent than creating American jobs and protecting our health. The best way to do that is to invest in a clean energy future that makes our workers more competitive, our companies stronger, our country more secure and all of us healthier.”

David Holt, president of the Consumer Energy Alliance:

“President Obama’s vision for a more robust renewable energy economy is a step in the right direction toward a well-rounded domestic energy supply, and new opportunities in the American workforce. But while Consumer Energy Alliance shares this vision, we see the President’s message as an inaccurate reflection of our current energy needs and the impact these resources have on our jobs and the economy. Americans need more affordable and accessible renewable energy, but not at the expense of those resources we rely on every day, and certainly not at the rate of billions of dollars in tax increases. Along with more solar power and other renewables, we should also expand access to all sources of energy – everything from offshore oil and gas to more affordable nuclear development. There is no quicker path to economic resurgence than through proper development of our abundant natural resources and the economic growth that they create.”

Rich Moskowitz, vice president and regulatory affairs counsel for the American Trucking Association:

“While the American people can appreciate the President’s call for clean energy developed here at home, we need access to all sources of energy and nothing less. More widely deployed renewable power will make energy that much more abundant in the future, but it unfortunately will not address the high gasoline and diesel prices consumers face today. With offshore oil production expected to decline by over 10 percent in 2011, we can’t afford to support a comprehensive energy policy that turns its back on conventional sources of energy that we depend upon to power our cars, our trucks, our homes and our national economy.”